The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-09-21
The MOrmOns Convicted in
the Third District.
SOME VERY SLIM EVIDENCE
Five Enter Pleas OF Guilty ard
Two Stand Trial, with the
Usual Result.

rested, and assisted in making the ar
rest. He found the defendant in an en-
closure near the residence of the second
wife; defendant was engaged in pIow-
ing when arrested; mad no conversation
with him as to the ownership of the
place; told defendant that he was salts
| fed that deputy Cannon had served
papers on Petra, the reputed third wife,
and that he had better assist in serving
the witnesses; defendant told him
that Petra was his third wife;
they then went to Petra's
house, and found Mr.. Cannon
there; they then went to Annie s
house and defendant called her out, and
told her that he had been arrested. No
inducements were held out by either
witness or Cannon for the defend
ant to make any statement;
Cannon told him that any statement
he made would be used against him, if
necessary. Cannon asked defendant
why he had separated from his first
wife, and he replied that he married
Annie and they could not get on very
we'll, and that he married Petera be
cause Annie bore him no children; the
| first wife, he said, was living at the
Park.
On Grass -examination, witness said
he did not spehk Danish. Defendant
spoke very poor English, but was able
to make himself understood.
Bowman Cannon was then called, and
testified that he was a deputy marshal
when the defendant was arrested.
He went to Petra's house to serve
papers. He corroborated the testimony
of Mr.. Franks in regard to telling
defendant that any statement made by
him would be used against him.
This was all the evidence offered, and
the jury was charged by the court,
After retiring for few minutes, the
Sentence was set for September Both at
Ppm.
The case of the United States vs..
JAMES NJ. FISHER,
charged with unlawful cohabitation
was then taken NJ.
a jury was called and being accepted
by both sides, was sworn, and the in
dictment charging the defendant with
having lived with Edith Fisher and
Lydia Rank Fisher as his wives between
January 1st, 1885, and May 18th, 1887,
was read.
Edith Fisher was the first witness,
| but as she Was the lawful wife of the de-
| PENDANT, she declined 70 testify, and
was excused.
Lydia A Rank Fisher was then called.
| She testidedst! she had lived at Mil
fnp frf \
to defendant and was still his wife; she
had five children, the oldest being 10
and the youngest about l year old, de-
| fendant took his meals with her, but
rOomed at her brother-i in laws; still re-
garded herself as defendants wife; was
acquainted with Edith Fisher; she is
regarded as tie first wife OF the defend
ant; she lives about half a mile from
witness house and has seven or eight
children, all of whom bear the name of
Fisher; witness lived on the farm
of defendant; supposed that he
had wife living when he mar
RED her; married him eighteen
years ago; she had lived in the
same house with Edith; defendant had
not lived with Edith for seven or
eight years, during which tine he had
lived with witness only; was OF SPEAK
ing terms with Edith.
Edward Ellis was the next witness. He
testified that he lived in this city; had
known defendant for two or three
years; knew Edith Fisher: had met her
at Mill Greek since January, 1885, and
had been at her house about once a
month during the dates named in the
Indictment; had seen defendant
in her yard once or twice,
but held no conversation with
him in regard to his first wife.
name of Fisher. The farms of Lydia
and Edith were separate. Never saw
the wives visiting each other.
E. a. Franks was then called, and
testified that he had assisted with Mr.
Pratt III making the arrest of defend
ant, who was found al his stable. Pratt
stAEed the warrant On him, and witness
served the subpoena on the first wife
The defendant said that Edith was his
first wife.
Cross examined - Nr. Pratt told
defendant that any statement made by
him would be used against him
This was all the evidence offered, aud |
arguments were made by LeGrand |
Young for tie defense and by Mr.. |
Pelers for the prosecution, after which /
the Court charged the jury, who |
brought in verdict Of guilty.
Sentence was set for Septenb Der 29tb. !
OTHER BUSINESS.
SOLOMON Brisacher VS.. F. II. Dyers
motion of plaintiff for new trial allowed;
exception taken.
The People VS.. II. +. Friend, ct AL,